Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV10953, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10953    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants CV Communities, LLC and City Ventures, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

I.                   MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Code Civ. Proc. section 473 subd. (a)(1) states that:

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

“The trial court has discretion to permit or deny the amendment of the complaint, but instances justifying the court's denial of leave to amend are rare.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642.)

“Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [Citations], this policy should be applied only ‘[w]here no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .’ [Citation.] A different result is indicated ‘[w]here inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation.]” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

Pursuant to California Rule of Court Rule 3.1324, “[a] motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1)Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3)State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

Such a motion must include a supporting declaration stating, “(1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (CRC Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)

Plaintiffs CV Communities, LLC and City Ventures, LLC (Plaintiffs) seek leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), with the following changes from their current FAC. First, they seek to add an additional count to their breach of contract claim against Defendant Antelope Valley – East Kern Water District (AVEK) for failing to cooperate with Plaintiffs and establish a reimbursement mechanism for the water supply on the relevant project, and for repudiating its obligation to supply water to the project. (Proposed SAC ¶ 71.) Second, they seek to add a cause of action for reformation of the Palmdale Joint Community Facilities District Agreement (JCFA) as an alternative to rescission of same. (See Proposed SAC ¶ 100.)

The new allegations related to AVEK’s breach of contract are related to actions that took place in 2022, and which therefore could not have been included in prior iterations of the pleading. (Mircheff Decl. ¶ 4A.) The other new allegations, meanwhile — adding restitution and reformation remedies for claims arising from the Palmdale JCFA — are based fundamentally on the same set of facts underlying the FAC. (Mircheff Decl. ¶¶ 4B, 4C.) Other new allegations are added to the declaratory relief cause of action concerning AVEK’s alleged violations of other statutes, the possibility of which were raised in Palmdale’s cross-complaint. (Mircheff Decl. ¶ 4D.)

Plaintiffs argue that no prejudice will result from these amendments, as the facts at issue are fundamentally the same, trial is not set until August 2023, and no parties have yet taken depositions, save for Plaintiffs’ deposition of AVEK. (Mircheff Decl. ¶¶ 8–10.)

Plaintiffs’ motion complies with the Rules of Court, and supports the requested amendments with the necessary declaration and explanation. No party has filed an opposition to this motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.